WASHINGTON  Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California this week for not doing enough to find and punish unauthorized immigrants, and said on Wednesday he was girding for an epic battle.

California is using every power it has  and some it doesnt  to frustrate federal law enforcement, he said in a speech in Sacramento. So you can be sure Im going to use every power I have to stop them.

One of the weapons Mr. Sessions is counting on is a 2012 Supreme Court ruling siding with the Obama administration, which had sued Arizona for violating federal immigration laws. But in that case Mr. Obamas lawyers accused the state of going too far in trying to find and punish unauthorized immigrants.

The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

So it may turn out that the principle of federal supremacy over immigration established by the Obama administration will help the Trump Justice Department achieve diametrically different goals.

The tables are turned, said Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University.

Much different cases: Arizona was trying to enforce the federal immigration laws on the books; California is trying to thwart them. Does Sessions have to go before the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals in the People’s Republic of California?

“So it may turn out that the principle of federal supremacy over immigration established by the Obama administration”

They didn’t do that. Mariana Pfaelzer, Federal Judge for the Southern District of California, did that in 1996 when she overturned much of Prop. 187.

The mantra that the Mexican Reconquistadors screamed was ‘a state cannot make an immigration law’.

Now the very people who said that 22 years ago are the ones who pushed these laws through the California State legislature: Kevin de Leon, Anthony Rendon and host of other non-American garbage who have no business making laws for Americans.

They knew that people would not remember, or call them on the outrageous hypocrisy.

Sooo, at times something good is seen by tinkering with our Constitution. Though it’s hardly the outcome anyone thought to see.

It will prove to be most interesting to see how judges will handle transgender intermingling in the rest rooms of America. Or the separation and divorce of a married same sex couple. Or the right of religious freedom when the charge is used in another context. Might we expect to see a lot of back tracking and liberal tears?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.